SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Research on Education and Psychology / 2022 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: Special Issue

Adaptation of T-STEM CT Scale to Turkish: Teacher Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy for Teaching Computational Thinking

Mustafa SARITEPECİ
Aykut DURAK
Pages
47–56
Publication Date
2022-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results, the two-factor (Factor1: T-STEM CT self-efficacy, Factor2: T-STEM CT outcome expectancy) and thirteen-item structure had an acceptable fit with the data.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Computational thinking (CT) skills are accepted as fundamental literacy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although the idea that K-12 teachers should teach students CT skills in an interdisciplinary context is heavily expressed, there is a need for a measurement tool in Turkish that measures teachers' self-efficacy in this regard.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, the two-factor (Factor1: T-STEM CT self-efficacy, Factor2: T-STEM CT outcome expectancy) and thirteen-item structure had an acceptable fit with the data.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:In-service teachers · Scale adaption · Computational thinking

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) skills are accepted as fundamental literacy. Although the idea that K-12 teachers should teach students CT skills in an interdisciplinary context is heavily expressed, there is a need for a measurement tool in Turkish that measures teachers' self-efficacy in this regard. This study aims to adapt the T-STEM CT scale, developed by Boulden et al. (2021), into Turkish and to carry out validity and reliability studies of this scale. The original scale consists of a 5-point Likert scale and 13 items. The participants of this study consisted of 168 teachers from different branches working in K-12 schools. It was carried out by selecting for application purposes and a convenient sampling method. Various validity and reliability methods were used to validate the scale. According to the results, the two-factor (Factor1: T-STEM CT self-efficacy, Factor2: T-STEM CT outcome expectancy) and thirteen-item structure had an acceptable fit with the data. Consequently, the validity and reliability of a Turkish tool measuring teaching efficacy beliefs for computational thinking skills were confirmed.

🔖

Cite This Article

SARITEPECİ, M., DURAK, A. (2022). Adaptation of T-STEM CT Scale to Turkish: Teacher Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy for Teaching Computational Thinking. Research on Education and Psychology, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: Special Issue, 47–56. https://ajindex.com/articles/797220

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-835. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxs074
  2. Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661-670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
  3. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
  4. Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20-23.
  5. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
  6. Basogain, X., Olabe, M., Olabe, J., Maiz, I., & Castaño, C. (2012). Mathematics Education through Programming Languages. 21st Annual World Congress on Learning Disabilities, In 21st annual world congress on learning disabilities (pp. 553-559).
  7. Bell, J., & Bell, T. (2018). Integrating computational thinking with a music education context. Informatics in Education, 17(2), 151-166. https://www.doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2018.09
  8. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin, 88(3), 588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
  9. Boulden, D. C., Rachmatullah, A., Oliver, K. M., & Wiebe, E. (2021). Measuring in-service teacher self-efficacy for teaching computational thinking: development and validation of the T-STEM CT. Education and Information technologies, 26(4), 4663-4689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10487-2
  10. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (Vol. 154, pp. 136). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
  11. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2002). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows: A guide for social scientists. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203471548
  12. Bundy, A. (2007). Computational thinking is pervasive. Journal of Scientific and Practical Computing, 1(2), 67-69.
  13. Cattell, R. (2012). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/1